"A massive, highly sophisticated piece of malware has been newly found infecting systems in Iran and elsewhere and is believed to be part of a well-coordinated, ongoing, state-run cyberespionage operation. The malware, discovered by Russia-based anti-virus firm Kaspersky Lab, is an espionage toolkit that has been infecting targeted systems in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, the Israeli Occupied Territories and other countries in the Middle East and North Africa for at least two years. Dubbed 'Flame' by Kaspersky, the malicious code dwarfs Stuxnet in size." Since I'm not particularly well-versed in the subject, maybe someone can answer this question for me: if country A creates a malware infection like this to spy on and/or harm computers in country B, can it be construed as an act of war under existing international law?

And that's just Iraq. Had the west not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretence - mysteriously, nobody has been brought before courts in The Hague yet for that one - 99.9% of those people would be alive today.

But hey, we never intended to kill them, so that makes it all okay, right?

I'm going to get very sarcastic here, and I don't mean it to be insulting, but it should serve as a contrasting example of what you and that website are insinuating.

This just in, Saddam Hussein has apparently never killed anyone, and never would have. The Kurds were actually living in paradise. Harmony has flowed across the middle east all these thousands of years. There was was no in-progress civil war in Iraq, stifled by mass executions of civilians by the government. W/O the US, nobody in the middle east would ever have commited violence against someone else.

I apologize for the hyberbole, but you get what you bring to an argument like this. I personally have been against the Iraq war (pro-Afghan war), however I have to admit, in the long run it's probably saved lives. It was not our problem to solve though, and we were arrogant for fixing some of their mess.